Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

Not according to Marshall McLuhan. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I thought I understood McLuhan's riddle once but it escaped me. Please explain.

Funny you should ask. I just re-read an explanation from Mark Federman(Chief Strategist-McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology)which I pulled off the internet. What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?This is good! Even though our society by-and-large never actually studies anymore, we are increasingly adept at googling information to support or refute arguments. Honestly, it has been years since i read Understanding Media and in simply googling my witty comeback to your question, I have reopened a proverbial can of worms which I like to talk and think about.

quote:

---

The subject that would occupy most of McLuhan's career was the task of understanding the effects of technology as it related to popular culture, and how this in turn affected human beings and their relations with one another in communities. Because he was one of the first to sound the alarm, McLuhan has gained the status of a cult hero and "high priest of pop-culture".{1} This status is not undeserved, and McLuhan said many things that are still pertinent today.

---

McLuhan, a Canadian publisher, wrote the book Understanding Media back in 1964, long before the internet and the age of computers. His ideas were quite novel back then and yet they make sense in todays world--at least for me.What is this riddle of which you speak?

quote:

---

McLuhan tells us that a "message" is, "the change of scale or pace or pattern" that a new invention or innovation "introduces into human affairs."

---

quote:

---

McLuhan defines medium for us as well. Right at the beginning of Understanding Media, he tells us that a medium is "any extension of ourselves."

---

Now how does this relate to Christianity and Christ? If Christ was (and is) God in the flesh, it would be as if the Creator of all seen and unseen became one of us so as to allow communion and relationship to transpire. a medium by dictionary definition is a "go-between" and Jesus is the perfect "go-between" for a bunch of ants on a dust speck trying to relate to or understand the Creator of universes full of stars and planets and God knows what else.Tell me more about McLuhans riddle, as you understand it.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Federman's take on Macluhan seems almost as muddy as McLuhan himself. I was hoping for your take on McLuhan.My take on it is that McLuhan was talking about what the relationship between medium and message "is", not what it should be - i.e. he seems to be saying that the medium tends to get in the way of the content. I know the drill. But that doesn't address the question of putting the medium ahead of the message - worshipping the TV and ignoring the movie.

You have said before that people made the mistake of worshiping the messenger rather than heeding the message. Paul may have argued that the messenger(Christ) was the message.This gets back to jars tired mantra that Christianity is about what you do.(which you by-and-large agreed with) which leads to the question of whether the messenger was the message. (I preach Christ and Him crucified)I would tend to assert that what we do is a result of who we are (extensions of the medium?)

Sure
Other people have every right to make up their minds about how I seem to act.As far as I'm concerned... I don't particularly stick with any single label.There are things I don't believe in.
There are things I believe in.I try not to let any particular belief prevent me from learning the truth, though. I probably would update my wording on certain things But my sentiments remain roughly the same.
I still don't see any significant difference pertaining to Christianity or Muslims or any particular religion.
There doesn't seem to be any religiously-related group of people that has a monopoly on any aspect of human achievement. This lends credence to the idea that it really doesn't matter what religion (or none at all) you belong to in an overall-average sense.However, in a personal, specific sense.
There is a very high significant difference in people who feel safe and secure, people who have confidence and conviction and those who are lacking such values.Therefore... if any particular group of people speaks more to your particular personality in order to grant you such things... safey, security, confidence, conviction... I would recommend that you should spend your time with those people and develop such values within yourself.That only includes one caveat... that throughout such an ordeal, you (and the group of people you want to join) are not hurting other people. To me, I would only worry about what "trying to convert Jews" entails.Does it entail mutually-desired dialogue and accepting any curious person into the group and honestly explaining what Christianity is about?
If so.. then I think Christianity should continue to convert Jews and anyone else who is interested in the ideas.Does it entail any nagging, or abuse, or aggressive tactics or hurting other people?
If so... then I think Christianity should stop trying to convert Jews or anyone else and entirely disband their system of cult-like behavior.

So you even put a second-hand messenger before the message?A letter comes in the mail. You throw away the letter but keep the envelope. The next day another letter comes saying, "Wasn't that a great envelope?" Do you throw that letter away too and worship that envelope? How do you know which is the One True Envelope? You assert that quite often and I reply that the facts don't back you up: People who worship the messenger don't have better behaviour than people who follow the message.

So you are suggesting that Paul was knocked off of his high horse by a rumor?

I'm saying that Paul was a second-hand messenger. Whether his message had any relevance or not, why would you give it equal value to the original? You're looking at a photocopy of a photocopy.

My point is that Paul thought that the messenger(Jesus) was the message...which Marshall McLuhan said in his quote. McLuhan was a Christian, FYI.

Again, my take on McLuhan is that he didn't think substituting the medium for the message was necessarily a good idea. He was talking about the nature of communication - e.g. what can go wrong. He wasn't, as far as I can see, advocating that we should throw away the letter and keep the envelope.

This applies to the whole take on the war on terror. People in Western nations by-and-large feel safe and secure. As a result, little change occurs between the haves and the have-nots.The majority of Islamic people in the middle east are not so much concerned with converting the world to Islam. They are more concerned with wanting the way of life that those in the West enjoy. Terror is in fact a military strategy to try and stir up the western nations to engage in a fight....the goal being to bankrupt the system and allow a global revolution to take place.

Could it be that the envelope and the message are the same thing?Jesus was the envelope that contained the Creators message. Chew on that one awhile.

Well no, that could not be. That is simply classic apologetic nonsense; there is absolutely nothing there to chew on.

that is simply your opinion and has no fact to back it up.